Denied a Defense -- Part Two

Part one is here. I'm going to apologize at the outset of this post for its length. It seems there is nothing I can do about that. *sigh* I hope the story is told well enough that you're willing to wade to the finish.

It feels like part two is the hardest part for me to tell. I'll see how it goes. Part of the difficulty is that I've lost some details. But the main point and general effects are clear to me so I proceed. The other part is that it isn't a memory I enjoy delving into. Narcissists suck...and so do the moonbats who won't oppose them.

I will start by reiterating the point that I'm illustrating with this story. This two part story as well as the story about my sister's last successful hit at my heart are being told to help illustrate some of the principles Kathy Krajco laid out in her post "Self-Preservation Under Narcissistic Abuse". The two incidents that I have and am outlining for you are to show some of the devastation that occurs when someone is told by others they do not have the right to defend themselves or fight back against abuse:

So, for the sake of the victim's mental health, you must NEVER deny him or her the right to put up a fight...It violates the laws of nature and the innate instinct for self-preservation. If the victim knuckles under to psuedo-moralistic pressure to not lift hand or voice in self defense, he or she will hate themselves and become a suicide risk. That is forcing people to commit the worst breech of faith there is - with one's very self...Never, never, never preach prime-time morality at the victim making it a sin for him or her to yell right back at the abuser. Though yelling back may not be wise in all cases, it IS the victim's right. It at least lets him or her preserve self-respect through showing a backbone.

*************************************

Although I was overwhelmed in the midst of the unfair attack against my honor, integrity and good deeds I did show an unbending resistance to the attacker. Even though V had reduced me to tears, even though I begged her to show me a shred of mercy during her attack of words and cruel indifference, I would not capitulate to her twisted reality. I clung with fierceness to what I knew to be true about the events and about myself.

There was something of a victory in that for me. I had been raised by an evil narcissist mother to always question myself and my perceptions when I was confronted by her self-righteous and unfair accusations. She could often persuade me to see myself as being fully in the wrong when I wasn't wrong at all or when I was only somewhat wrong. I did not hand over this kind of victory to V. I did not break faith with myself. This was not a small victory considering I knew nothing about narcissism; by that I mean, I didn't have a name for what was happening. But I knew I'd met this kind of evil before and the biggest part of myself rose up in resistance to it. I did not capitulate.

I was already well on my way to being the terror against evil doers that I am today. *big grin*

Nevertheless, the bystanders made a difficult situation much more difficult for me. The "prime-time moralizers" were at the ready to assume that there must have been something I did to provoke V's attack. The basic assumption most people have, that it "takes two to tango", is often used to whack a victim on the head after they've already been unfairly abused by the narcissist. Most people are utterly and blissfully unaware that there are predators in the pack. The predators lay in wait while they look for the person who has the virtues they don't have...and then pick their moment to smear that person's reputation with the very opposite of what they are. They always attack when there are no witnesses. They rely on the dip shits who believe it always "takes two to tango" to ensure that their victim gets to carry most, if not all, the blame.

This blame rests easily upon the victim because the victim is OUTRAGED at the injustice. They may be very emotional, angry, and demanding for justice. This only tends to convince the coconuts who believe in "prime-time morality" that the victim is the problem. By now the predator is sitting back looking innocent and calm. Their calmness, contrasted with the open distress and accusations of the victim, are all it takes to convince most people that the trouble-maker is the victim.

V was quick to contact the pastor. I think she was concerned that she might have exposed herself by her attack on me. I was obviously not going to go down quietly or easily. I had immediately tried to confront her in front of my friend, Mrs. Bishop. V rightly assumed that Mrs. Bishop was going to believe my side of the story. The Bishops were highly respected not just in our church but all the area churches. So knowing that this respected family would not be supporting her claims against me, I'm sure that V wanted to get the first "crack" at the pastor to try to convince the primary authority figure that she had been victimized.

The next thing I remember is getting a visit from the pastor. He had made himself the go-between for me and V. He had already heard V's version and had come to me with that. Of course, I refuted it adamantly. He left my house to go to V equipped with my report of what had happened. He was trying to get a reconciliation in place because of the possible consequences to our little church if one was not reached.

A little more background on our church. About six months earlier my husband had been laid off of his contract job. When news of this got to our church, people started to quietly plot their desertion of the church. Why? Because at this point my husband was the primary leader of our church. The pastor we had was in charge of three churches and so, most of the time, it was up to us to make sure that services had a speaker and classes were being taught. My husband was doing most of that kind of leadership. It wasn't because he wanted to. It was because it defaulted to him. Most of the people who had joined our little church thought they were doing enough just by showing up. In a church as small as this one warming a pew was really not a luxury so many should have afforded themselves. So my husband and myself ended up with most of the responsibilities. We were reluctant leaders, but being responsible people we took up our tasks without complaint. After my husband was laid off of work it became absolutely clear that people were not thinking about filling in for us. We were assuming at the time that we would have to move away for my husband to regain employment, therefore it was generally assumed by all that we were not going to be around long. Some of the members were already attending other area churches most of the time starting shortly after my husband announced his unemployment.

After our friends' home burned down the church people seemed even more anxious to leave our little church. We were a small church family, and most people didn't want the responsibility of having to help the Bishops as much as they saw the Bishops would need help in the months to come. A small church doesn't allow for much of the luxury of assuming that someone else will pick up the slack. The fire was an added incentive for some of our members to disappear. V was the first to make herself scarce.

The member who assumed no responsibilities and whose attendance was the least dependable was, you guessed it, V. I think part of V's attack on me was an attempt to make it someone else's fault that they no longer were attending our church. They couldn't just leave. No, they had to make it someone's fault for their leaving. I am convinced this was a factor. V never stepped foot in our church again after she attacked me. Her husband only appeared once during the week for the final board meeting. One reason they needed to make it someone else's fault they were leaving was because L was the treasurer of the church. That was an important responsibility, and it was one he knew no one else in our church was going to take from him. So if they resigned in a huff because of purported injustices he could absolve his own conscience for ditching his responsibility. No such silly tactics were needed. As it was, the conference took our financial books and assumed that responsibility after L's defection.

The pastor was probably seeing the likelihood that our church was on its last legs. I think his efforts to smooth the waters between me and V were motivated by his desire to keep this church functional. What he hadn't accepted...and what I and my husband could clearly see by now...was that this church was kaput. All that remained was for someone to be willing to pronounce it dead. By now, nobody other than my husband, myself and my daughter were willing to do the heavy lifting. Well, the Bishops were willing but were completely unable to do anything. They had been rendered unable to really support the church except with their attendance once they'd adopted the four new kids. That had been the first big blow months earlier to the church's chances at getting off the ground. Now with their personal disaster they were actually in need of church energy...an very finite amount of which existed.

The pastor was a man in his 50s. He was a very kind man with a fair amount of wisdom. I had come to respect him a considerable amount. I thought that in the year we'd known each other that my character had been amply demonstrated. So when he sat there in my living room and told me V's version of events and heard my refutations I was distressed to find out he thought I bore at least some responsibility for the "hard feelings" that now existed between myself and V. He never blamed me directly for being unfairly accused by V in the kitchen, though he did try to gently assert that my emotional reaction to what V did was my contribution to "wrongdoing". Yes, my tears in that kitchen, the fact that I tried to defend myself with reason against V's unfair accusations, my continued unbending attitude that V was completely in the wrong were signs to the pastor that I needed to admit to my own faults of character.

I was shocked and horrified to find out that V had accused me of threatening violence toward her. She claimed to the pastor to have been scared of me in that kitchen because she thought her physical person was in danger! That accusation did nothing to mollify me as the pastor tried to get me to soften my position. I showed complete mystification at how she could possibly accuse me of such a thing. As I thought about what happened I remembered my one large arm gesture that I described in my last post. I remembered abruptly throwing my hands up into the air to form the shape of a big sign. I remembered her taking half a step back even though my arms went nowhere near her. I remembered that "gotcha" look. That was the only action I did which could have possibly been construed as incipient violence.

When I found out about this blatant lie and twisting of the facts I was even more unbending in my refusal to "make nice". I could now see that V would stoop to any lie whatsoever to get her ass out of the sling. There was no room for reconciliation in my mind. She was upping the ante! She was sorry for nothing. She never even pretended to be sorry.

Meanwhile I was having to deal with the disapproval of a man whom I respected and whose good opinion I valued. He told me that Christians who are close with the Lord cannot find themselves upset even when unfairly attacked. My emotional reaction was a sign that I needed to submit more to Christ. V could not have hurt my feelings if I was "dead in Christ". This hurt the most. Of all that happened, this hurt the most. This meant that I would forever live under the cloud of his disapproval because I had not reacted in a "Christlike" manner. There was no redemption from that unless I would admit such was the case and ask V to forgive my unChristlike response.

That wasn't going to happen. I hadn't done or said anything to V that could be construed as being immoral, wrong or even unkind. Even though I knew I would be going forward under the cloud of being a "less-than" Christian I was still not willing to bend over for what happened to me. Not even this respected pastor could force me to do it. Thank God. Obviously, after this event my trust in the pastor suffered considerably.

How was my demeanor during my conversations with the pastor? I was not raging. I didn't hurl invectives or expletives. I was rational and probably somewhat heroically calm considering the circumstances. Yes, I am sure I showed my strong emotions against what had happened, but certainly not in any way that could be rightly described as being unreasonable or indecorous.

It was doubly distressing to me that this pastor was giving any credence whatsoever to V's version of events. That was hard to take. I had done nothing wrong. It was an unprovoked attack, yet the pastor was obviously assuming that no one would attack completely unprovoked. I got the clear impression he believed there was something I wasn't admitting to. I had to live with the fact that V had successfully smeared some of herself off onto me. I was dirty. I couldn't wipe the smear completely off myself because the pastor wouldn't allow it. He made it clear that, if nothing else, my reaction was wrong. In that way I had contributed to the problem, in his mind.

The happy part of this story, and likely the source for my strength of will against the double assault, was that I had a husband and daughter who believed me utterly. They, too, were outraged. It was enough for me. They were not willing to throw out everything they knew about me in order to believe some twisted bitch's version of me! They LIVE with me. They know me better than anybody else. Knowing me, they knew I was telling the complete truth. I also felt that the Bishops believed me. Mr. Bishop actually demonstrated some outrage. Mrs. Bishop believed me but she is not constituted to show outrage in any circumstance. Even against gross injustice to herself, so I don't remember receiving the moral support of her outrage. It would have been nice, but I knew she was giving me what she could. A sympathetic ear and a belief that I did no wrong even in my responses to the injustices. It helped. The two people whose opinions I valued most in our church (other than my own family, obviously) were the Bishops. They, too, were not willing to throw out everything they knew about me from their own experiences in order to believe a demonstrably selfish woman's version of me.

To imagine someone being as unfairly attacked as I was by V and not having the support of family and a couple of church members is an imagination of a nightmare. Even with the support I had it was a very emotionally difficult pass for me. If any of you have endured this type of thing in your church you have my deepest sympathies. If you have had to endure it with no earthly support...my heart breaks for you. It would require a superhuman strength to get through something like this with only yourself believing your story. That superhuman strength would have to come from God Himself.

I used the plural in describing the "moralizers". That is somewhat of an exaggeration that I'll correct now. It was only the pastor who said anything to me directly. Other members of our church just gave me a wide berth. They seemed uncomfortable around me. It was like they were desperate to not have to take sides. I didn't force that on them. I didn't rail to anyone about what happened. I decided people were going to believe whatever they wanted to. I was not going to try to gain support that wasn't going to come to me unsolicited. I'm sure part of their discomfort was their desertion of our little church endeavor which means it wasn't really about me or what happened with V. Whatever. It felt like disapproval at the time given the circumstances.

By the way, neither V or her husband started attending any of the other area churches. They disappeared into the ether. Another bit of info on these two. We (i.e. our church) found out at some point that V & L started attending church after a many decades long absence a few months after L had found out he had cancer of the colon. They both started a very strict diet regime that they were assured was "God's diet". (Hence, V's focus on her cookie temptations I mentioned last post. She made it clear many times that she looked down on the rest of us who weren't following "God's diet". We were less progressed Christians. She said as much.) They were both sure L would be cured because they were following all the rules.

I believe now that their church attendance was part of their plan to obligate God to cure L. "See God? We're doing everything right!" A month or so before V's attack on me her husband had been checked to see if the cancer was gone. It wasn't. The shift in V and L's attitude was immediate and apparent to all. They were very obviously angry. Angry and bitter at God. He wasn't doing His side of the arrangement!! Rather than focusing on the good news which was that the cancer was still small (a real blessing considering L had foregone medical treatment for a whole year), they were angry that L was going to have to have surgery after all.

I am convinced this was at the root of what started their disaffection with going to church and why they were looking for a way out. Fair weather Christians. They actually believed they could obligate God to heal L because he was strictly following the "Eden diet". Well, guess what. God can't be bribed. Or fooled. You can't obligate God to do things your way just because you think you've figured out all the rules. Our following God's commands does not put us in a position to start boxing God into a corner so He HAS to give us our way. Such hubris and selfish motivations God doesn't reward.

Two months after V's attack on me six people assembled in a small room of our church: my husband and me, both Bishops, L, and the pastor. It was a final board meeting. We voted to officially shut the doors of this church forever. The conference would be putting the property up for sale. The last services were held on the last weekend of October 2002. We were now no longer members of a local church. Our memberships were now being held by the conference. They sit there to this day.

We lived for a year on our savings after my husband had lost his contract job. Much to everyone's surprise my husband landed another well-paying non-contract job with the same company. They allowed him to telecommute. This meant we were not forced to move away from the area. All those who had feared we would be leaving them holding the bag of responsibility for church duties had feared for naught. We lived for another year in the area after my husband started his new job.

The church that was nearest us after the closure of our church was the main congregation of the area. It is where the pastor was most of the time. We attended there a few times in the ensuing year, but our attendance was spotty in the beginning and non-existent after that. We weren't held to account for our non-attendance by the pastor because he took a church in another state and moved away.

We were exhausted. I was now dealing with the fall-out from my mother's behavior in my home on Thanksgiving 2002 that occurred only about three weeks after the closure of our church. With all the drama in my own family I stayed away from church. I didn't have the emotional energy for dealing with all that was going on in my personal life and the potential problems that going to church always invites. We are only now, six years later, getting back into church attendance.

In January following the above events, Mrs. Bishop found out she had stage four breast cancer. Another crisis. I helped in every way I could until we moved away. She is still alive today, though it looks like the cancer is back.

The extreme emotional pain I had to endure because I was denied the right to defend myself cannot be overstated. First, I was denied the right to self-defense by V as she rejected my every attempt to explain the truth of the matter. It was excruciating. Then, when the pastor downgraded my Christian experience simply because I was hurt by the injustice of Vs attack and tried to stand up for myself -- that was the most painful aspect of the whole experience.

I did not lash out in kind to V. I kept myself to the truth. I didn't use her abuse of me to justify me abusing her. I simply clung to the truth about myself and the circumstances and would not be swerved. There is no way to make my reaction into a sin without being utterly perverse. Like Kathy has said so very well, when someone has been abused by a narcissist do not tell the victim they are wrong for resisting. Ever. If you are the one thus abused, do not allow someone to tell you you're wrong for simply defending yourself. Even if that someone is a person you had thought well of before. Giving your approval to others to abuse you is an act that will cause you to loathe yourself utterly. Nobody's "esteem" of you is worth that very high price.

***********************************

The question was raised in the comments on the last post...what would I do differently today?

First of all, I really, really doubt someone could knock me completely off my emotional pins by a similar unfair and unprovoked attack. I would instantly see through what was happening. I would immediately know this person was not interested in reality, only in their agenda. I would have no problem recognizing the predator in front of me.

If the exact same scenario happened to me today here is what I picture happening. I would still assent to hearing V state her complaint against me since there would be the possibility that I could be at fault even if I didn't know what I'd done. I would want to apologize if it could be shown to me that I'd done something wrong against her, or anyone. So, yes, I would listen to V lay out her case against me. The moment where my compliance would stop would be at the juncture of explaining what really happened in opposition to the fiction she was believing about me and my actions and her obvious unwillingness to believe anything good about my behavior and motivations.

When I explained to V that she was misunderstanding what was going on and she utterly rejected my explanation and essentially called me a liar, that would be the end of it now. I would at that point hold up my hand and say, "I see you are not willing to be reasonable. Take your complaint up the chain of command." I would walk away. Even if her lips were still moving she would be talking to my butt.

She would not have gotten the satisfaction of my tears. She would not have gotten to feel powerful at my expense. Now she would be forced to try to explain to someone in authority her naked claims against me. There is likely no way her claims could have found support. As it was, she only gained some support for her claims because she was able to get a negative reaction from me. Sans that, she would have been hard pressed to get someone to agree I was in the wrong.

Let's say she succeeded in getting the pastor to believe she had been "sinned against" by me even if I acted as just described. What would I do then? Again, the moment I saw that the authority figure was not willing to believe me he'd be talking to my backside. I would not sit still for it. I would walk away. Like I have said to both my father and my sister: they can all be right...I'll just be gone.

That is my attitude toward those who want to pin unmerited blame on me. I'm just gone. I don't give a flying frak what these kind of people think of me. I do not desire the esteem of evil people or their accomplices. If they want to believe I'm evil when I'm demonstrably not evil then they are impervious to reason and truth. There is no point in dealing with people like that. I cannot be guilted into compliance when that compliance would come at the expense of my self-respect and truth. I am a decent person. When I do something wrong I will apologize thoroughly, without sparing myself. I will not blame shift. I will do all in my power to make it right. But I'll be damned if I'll apologize for something I didn't do. I'm not going to offer myself up for the satisfaction of those who want me to willingly sacrifice myself to a lie about me. If I am physically able to walk away, I will walk away. Pastor or not, I do not have to consent to lies about me to "keep the peace". Peace at any cost always costs way too much in the end. And in the end there is no peace.

Once you know you're dealing with reality revisionists don't grant them further audience. The longer you stand there, the more they will be able to pretend you did something you didn't do. Oh, and leave the willing idiots with the predators. They deserve each other. With any luck, at some point, the predator will make dinner out of one of their willing village idiots.

Denied a Defense -- Part One

This story is the second one I want to tell in the context of "Self-preservation Under Narcissistic Abuse". I have contemplated telling this story before as an illustration of spiritual abuse, but have steered away from it because it is a decidedly unpleasant memory for me. Maybe it is more unpleasant for me than remembering events involving my family because this story ended badly. I never got justice. I always felt that my reputation was forever marred by it. "Where do I go to get my reputation back?" Well, nowhere. I was glad when we were finally able to move away from the area in 2004.

This event occurred around September of 2002, which if you're following the time line, was only two months before things started going to crap between me and my parents.

We had moved to a rural farming area in the Northwest. We quickly became friends with another family from the church we started attending shortly after moving there. They are lovely people who we are still friends with even though we moved from the area four years ago. These friends, who I'll call by the fake surname Bishop, had hearts several sizes larger than their good sense. They had two children when we met them who had been adopted at birth and were around six and nine in ages.

In 2001 the Bishops met an older couple who had been taking care of four of their grandchildren. Three of kids had the same father (the son of the grandparents) and all four had the same mother. The parents were drug and alcohol users. The kids had been taken away from the biological parents by the state.

Long story. I'll sum up. The Bishops decided to adopt these four children. It was a decision they rushed into and was really ill-advised. That was my opinion then; it is still my opinion now. My opinion wasn't asked for, therefore I withheld it. Time has only proven (to me) how ill-advised it really was. It took quite a few years to find out, but all these kids have FAS to one degree of another. They were tested by several professionals last year and found to have FAS and varying other learning disabilities. To say that the Bishops lives got complicated after the adoptions is to vastly understate the matter. The eldest of the four was a girl. Annie. She was only a few months younger than the youngest of the two (also a girl) who had been adopted from birth. Annie was a child from hell.

About nine months after the adoption, the Bishops home went up in smoke. Quite literally. Suddenly, a family with six kids and two adults was homeless. To complicate this tragedy, the fire had been set by one of the children. Annie was prime suspect.

At this time I and my family were attending the same church as the Bishops in a small rural town about fifteen miles down a state highway from where we lived. The church had been almost shut down by the regional church conference because there were only three members and no services had been held there in a long time. The Bishops had convinced us to start attending there with them to see if the church could be revived. Their interest in the church was augmented by the fact that their private business was operating in the same town as the dying church. Within a month or so twelve adults were members of this church. They lived in various small communities around this little church. My husband, myself and my daughter soon found ourselves wearing many hats in the effort to make the church run. I am resolved to this day to never join a small church again. The reasons are legion, not just because you end up working yourself to a frazzle. As if that isn't reason enough.

When a family with six kids is suddenly bereft of home and all possessions the church feels responsible to help. Churches of our denomination in surrounding towns started to rally to help in the first few weeks post-fire. The task list was huge. The first thing that was needed was to get this family out of their motel room and into a real house. A ramshackle old farmhouse about a half mile down the road from the burnt house was found available for rent, but it was in desperate need of some renovation. People came to paint, install cabinets in the kitchen, clean, etc. Clothes and bedding were needed. The community provided those things in short order. Seems that the thing most people think to give after someone's house burns down are blankets. The Bishops ended up with many more blankets and sheets than even a family of eight needs. Folks, after a week post-fire, the victims probably don't need more blankets. There are other ways to be more helpful. Use your imagination, or ask. Child care. Meal preparation. School supplies. Gift cards for Walmart so they can buy needed essentials. Just some ideas.

The fact that I was a close friend of Mrs. Bishop made me very aware of some of the more immediate needs of the family. Naturally, I jumped right in. I was cooking meals for them and bringing the food to the burnt out house while they worked to inventory their burnt belongings for the insurance company. Laundry was a major and immediate need. I undertook that pronto. Most of them, at this point, only had a few articles of clothing each and needed them washed overnight. Working in all the soot and ash means clothes get real dirty real fast. I would deliver the clean clothes first thing in the morning so they could leave the motel room with clothes on.

I am no saint and am not trying to present myself as one. There were plenty of jobs I wasn't willing to sign up for. The last thing I wanted to do was hang out for hours in the blackened basement breathing in toxic soot to inventory pencils and books. Given that Mrs. Bishop was homeschooling all six kids there were vast numbers of both. I would much rather cook a meal for eight, do laundry, provide moral support, drive miles to cart stuff around, and take the suspected fire-starter into my home than some of the other jobs that needed doing. And since I'm finite, I did what I was willing to do and had time for and left it for others to fill in the gaps. I didn't try to do it all because I knew that one person does not have the power to support a family of eight in dire need! But I attacked what I knew I could and was willing to do with energy and cheerfulness. Mrs. Bishop was relying heavily on me for moral support and help in trying to figure out what to do about Annie. Emotionally, that was an even bigger problem than even the fire itself.

This, I think, is the minimum background to describe the event that shook me up pretty badly.

For the third week in a row the scent of cooking food was wafting over the small congregation near the end of services. My house was not big enough to seat the Bishop's family and my own for an afternoon meal. During the week everyone ate outside at a fold-out table set up in the front yard. Anyway, it seemed logical to use the church's kitchen to warm up the food and then be able to set up large tables in the adjoining multi-purpose room so we could all sit to eat after church indoors without the bugs and dirt. A once a week treat for the Bishops.

Little did I know that someone was choosing to be offended over this arrangement.

An older couple had started attending our little church at some point. They were in their 60s, retired and very wealthy. I'll refer to them by their first initials. The woman was V, the husband, L. I only mention the wealthy part because this woman was obviously a very spoiled individual. I mostly just smiled vaguely and nodded when she would jabber on about some little trial she was going through, like being tempted to eat too many cookies. I kid you not. She would bring this up often. It was like, "I'm so progressed in my Christian walk that God is now left to deal with this tiny little sin of mine." She came across as shallow and silly and rather self-centered. Not nasty.

Well, her hubby had been to church without his wife for the first two weeks I had been using the church kitchen to accommodate the Bishops. He had smelled the food and then reported to his wife that the church was having potlucks and wasn't inviting them. This misapprehension was supported by the fact that he saw another woman of our congregation bringing a dish into the kitchen on these weeks. Several people from a nearby town's church had brought a casserole or two as well. But rather than ask anyone why he and his wife weren't being invited to a church potluck they simply condemned me as being evil and shutting them out since I seemed to be the one on charge of whatever was happening in that kitchen.

Both V and L showed up at church the third weekend after the fire. They were cool and aloof. I took little notice of that fact since I had a lot else on my mind and taking my time and energy. I had no reason to think that little ole' me was the cause of their attitude.

I had slipped out of the pew shortly before the end of services to check on the food in the oven. Only a few moments later I turned around to find myself face to face with V. She immediately launched into her condemnations of me. She prefaced her remarks by saying she was following Matt. 18's instruction to come to someone who has offended her. Naturally, I was completely befuddled as to what I had done to offend since my interaction with her had been nil for weeks. So I quietly indicated I was listening. She told me I was being cruel and had sinned against her because I was hosting church potlucks without bothering to invite her and her husband.

When I heard this I was actually relieved. A simple misunderstanding that could be cleared up in a moment.

No such luck.

I interrupted her with, "Oh, my V! That isn't what is happening! This isn't a potluck." I tried to explain how on church day I had no where else to accommodate the Bishops for a large meal so I was using church facilities to handle the situation. (I'll point out here this woman lived in a vast mansion of a house. I notice she wasn't offering to help with providing a house for a meal! She was too worried about her hardwood floors being ruined by little kids.) I told her that the logistics of gathering up the donated food as well as the food I'd prepared, then heating it up and serving it were most efficiently solved by doing it there at the church. I told her she could ask other church members and would quickly find out they were not invited to a church potluck either.

Her face remained cold and hard. She basically called me a liar by insisting it was a potluck. The conversation began to spiral because I then tried to appeal to her heart. I told her that I was exhausted (very true) and was just doing my best to help the Bishops. I'm sorry if she felt she had been overlooked but that wasn't the case. I was only minding my own business and trying to do what I could to help another family in a crisis.

At this time I knew absolutely nothing about malignant narcissism. If I had known anything I would have immediately spotted a giant red flag at this juncture. The more I tried to gain a bit of mercy and understanding the more of the opposite I was treated to. Her accusations escalated. The refrigeration unit was going full blast. She was one haughty, cold bitch.

Apparently she felt like my good deeds were showing her up, so she took it upon herself to show me how it was my fault she was looking bad for not helping. So far what I had said pointed out that other people were helping with the food. She immediately assumed this was because I had asked for them to bring food. I hadn't. A few other women figured that food was needed for church day and simply provided it without asking. V then told me she had asked me right after the fire to tell her if there was anything she could do to help. Why hadn't I called her and asked her to bring food? I told her I hadn't asked anyone to bring food. People saw a need and filled it. There was plenty of food therefore I didn't need to call anyone.

I vaguely remembered V saying to me within a day of the fire to call her if help was needed, but had not put any thought into it. It wasn't my job to tell other people what to do. Everyone else seemed able to figure out what to do without being told. I had not appointed myself master and commander of an organized help effort. It wasn't needed. Stuff was getting done!

At this point I was in tears. Part of that was the exhaustion, the other part was the supreme injustice I was being subjected to along with her cold and merciless attitude. At this point I reached exasperation. I threw my arms up in a gesture to demonstrate what I was saying, "V, what do you need!? A big flashing sign to tell you what to do? Other people have been able to help without me telling them what to do!!" I saw a look pass across her face when I had thrown up my arms and hands to look like it was a big sign. She stepped back half a step and raised her eyebrow along with this, "I have you now" look. I found out later what that look meant.

She continued with her accusations and cold, accusatory anger. I was beside myself. Dissolved. Desperate against the unfairness of it. Feeling like I was being kicked for only doing my very best. I was literally having a hard time breathing. It was just like getting a boot right in the mid-section. It was a feeling that resonated with a desperation I had felt in my youth with the same dynamic. Doing my best, getting back crap for it. My best efforts only perversely proving what a horrible person I was. Every effort to defend myself was rejected and used as proof that I was lying.

She shifted somewhat from the accusation I was throwing church potlucks because I kept slapping that one down and so she moved to a new accusation. She then told me I had no business using church property for a private exercise like feeding the Bishops. (How is that for compassion for the dispossessed Bishops?) V had married a man whose parents had help start up this particular church back in the 1940s. Although her husband had left the church entirely for all his adult life and had only started up attendance again in the last nine months they had this propriety sense toward the church. Like their last name alone gave them some kind of authority. So, she'd pulled out this new piece of crap from her back end to find another fault with me. In addition to everything else, I was misusing church property without asking for the express permission from the church board. A board that both my husband and I served on, and she and her husband did not! No one else had expressed concern about my "misuse" of church property. And never did. Reasonable people would never think to construe my use of the church kitchen as "misuse" of church property.

At some point this vicious bitch walked away from me while I was standing there, my face completely soaked in my tears. I was shaking in anger and grief. This whole scene went down unwitnessed by anyone but me. She had attacked me when I was alone and where no one could over hear. So, from beginning to end it was her word against mine.

She sidled right up to my friend, Mrs. Bishop. When I looked down the hallway I could see V talking with Mrs. Bishop and putting on a look of sympathy on her face toward Mrs. Bishop's plight. I couldn't stand it. I walked straight up to the two of them, rudely interrupted and said, "V, why don't you tell Mrs. Bishop what you just said to me back there in the kitchen." She was mum. There I stood, shaking and tearful; trying to get a witness, I suppose. "Tell her, V, how you are accusing me of something I didn't do. Tell her what a horrible person you think I am for simply trying to help Mrs. Bishop and her family! TELL HER!"

V needed to go somewhere right that very moment. She deflected my insistence she re-state her complaints to someone else by acting like I was a crazy woman and she didn't know what I was talking about. She turned on her heel and left the church.

This was the beginning of sorrows.

This post is long enough. I'll continue the story in the next post. For now, I need a break. I'm heading off for a nice, long walk in the sunshine. Next post I'll try to describe the fall-out from this event. It was the aftermath that made this whole episode much more painful. Disarmed by good Christians, I was denied the right to defend myself against the original accusations as well as the false ones which followed. My desire to defend myself was actually used by the pastor to assert that I was a weak Christian because I reacted emotionally. This was a man I had held great respect for. Ouch.

Voice of God or the Devil--The Expose'

I ended my last post with these questions:

Is it possible for a narcissist to be plugged into the voice of a holy and just God? Are you in spiritual danger if you discount someone's claims to be hearing God's voice even though you can see that the fruit of their lives is rotten? How can you know for sure it is okay to dismiss these transmissions without fear that you may be dismissing God Himself?

Let's start with the concept of "consider the source". Would we listen to a practicing womanizer lecture us on the need for fidelity in marriage? Would we sit still for a "sermon" from a convicted embezzler on the necessity for good ethics in business? How about a murderer on the sanctity of life? The answer is obviously no. Even though the womanizer, embezzler and murderer would likely be mouthing words of obvious truth on their selected subjects, their message would lack credibility and impact because of their hypocrisy. We would feel no shame in "considering the source". We could rightly assume that the person we are listening to can have no deep or helpful insight to give us because their lives, their actions, prove that they themselves don't believe what they are saying. Why should we? We expect people to practice what they preach. Rightly so.

Let me clarify at this point what hypocrisy is. I have noticed that people are a bit fuzzy on the definition of hypocrisy and therefore get tangled up in moral dilemmas that don't exist because of it. An example of what hypocrisy isn't: Take a parent who experimented with drugs as a teenager. The parent hasn't done drugs since he was 17. No ongoing drug problem. It's been 20 years since he touched the stuff. Now the parent has a teen of his own. The parent is conflicted about counseling his teen to never do drugs because he thinks he is being hypocritical since he himself tried them as a teen. How can he tell his kid to not do what he himself did? Wrong thinking. To give his son a clear, unequivocal instruction to never do drugs is being a responsible parent, not a hypocrite. The parent isn't doing drugs. Therefore, he is not hypocritical to tell someone else to not do drugs.

Here is a scenario that would make this parent a hypocrite: The parent is currently a drug user. For the parent to take a hit off his bong in the evening and then tell his teen in the morning to never do drugs...that is hypocrisy. Is the bong-smokin' parent imparting good advice based on truth if he tells his teen to not do drugs? Absolutely. It is truth he would be imparting because drugs are proven to be destructive to the body, mind and soul. But the message is lost due to the hypocritical messenger. The truth loses impact when the delivery system is a person who acts in contradiction to it.

Hypocrisy = when your life (your consistent behaviors) are the opposite of your words.

The narcissist is a complete and total hypocrite. Their words and their actions are in constant contradiction. When a narcissist dons spiritual garb they raise the level of hypocrisy exponentially. Don't take my word for it. Let's look at some Biblical concepts.

Matthew 7. This chapter is part of what is often called "the Sermon on the Mount" and was given by Christ early in His earthly ministry. Let's read a passage from this sermon. Then we're going to consider these words in light of something He said just previous which we will read keeping in mind the above lesson on what hypocrisy is.

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Matt. 7:15-20 NKJV

This passage begins with a solemn warning to Christians that there will be, guaranteed, "false prophets" in the congregation. The broader meaning of the name "prophet" is someone who represents God before the people...so it can be a term applied not just to a foreteller, but also an "inspired speaker". Look in your concordance. A false prophet is described in the concordance as a "pretended foreteller or a religious imposter". Got that? A false prophet can be a person who pretends to be religious by pretending to represent God's will and word to you.

Christ doesn't issue this warning to Christians just to scare them. He is next prescribes how these pretenders can be spotted. He makes reference to nature as He describes how a bad tree, a thornbush, or a thistle is not going to produce good edible fruit. He then promises that, ultimately, these bearers of bad fruit will be "cut down and thrown into the fire"...a promise of a final judgment. Vs. 20 tells us that we will know them by their fruits. That is counsel for us to apply reason and judgment to the behaviors of other Christians. Especially those Christians who present themselves as qualified to present God's word to us. The higher the profession, the higher the burden of proof needed to prove said profession.

This issue of judging fruit must be reconciled with the words Christ spoke just moments earlier as recorded in Matthew 7:1-5. This is a passage well-worn by narcissists. It is taken to be the absolute prohibition for Christians to ever judge anyone. That is the infantile understanding of the spiritual reality Christ was actually trying to teach. We do a great disservice if we take Matt. 7:1-5 and make it contradict Matt. 7:15-20. To do so makes Christ look insane. Since I don't believe He was insane, I look for the consistency between the two. It isn't hard to find.

Matt. 7:1-5 is counsel to not judge in hypocrisy. It is counsel to examine our own hearts very, very carefully before we start meting out judgments of others because the measure we use to weigh others in will be the measure used to weigh our own souls. To take this passage to be a complete prohibition against all judgment is to be stupid. It is instruction to us to examine our own lives very truthfully and carefully to make sure we aren't about to condemn someone else for what we ourselves are guilty of. To condemn our own sins in others is to add a censorious and critical spirit on top of the sin itself. Which makes you the bigger sinner.

Look at vs. 5: "Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye." Is that a condemnation of all judgment? No! It is a condemnation of judging in hypocrisy. After you've removed the big ole' board out of your own eye only then will you be able to see clearly enough to help your brother get that teeny little bit of sawdust out of his own eye. The adulterer can't condemn the flirtations he sees a brother engaging in with someone not his wife until the adulterer stops violating his own marriage vows. If the adulterer sees another man engaging in inappropriate behavior in relation to his marriage the adulterer damn well better keep his mouth shut. He hasn't a leg to stand on. His ability to see what he thinks is wrong behavior is seriously compromised by that strange woman in his own bed. Once you get the plank out of your own eye, you'll also be able to see that you are a bigger sinner than your brother with the speck in his eye. Which should keep you very humble and demand that you approach him because of your deep love for him...not because you have him in a "gotcha" position. You won't use his small sin to whitewash your own and bigger sins. That's how a narcissist uses your failings...to justify his own.

Let's use something less obvious than adultery. How about the very prideful person? Are they in a position to condemn you as being filled with pride? No. How about the avaricious person who covets everything you and others have? Are they qualified to condemn you for being too materialistic? Uh, no. The prideful and the covetous have two very big planks in their eye. Therefore, they are likely to see that plank and think they see it in your eye...when the truth is that the board is actually only in their eye. They misidentify the location of said plank. Projection is likely when a hypocrite starts condemning other's supposed sins. Another reason why judging in hypocrisy is wrong. It misidentifies sin and its location. Blame-shifting and projection are the result.

Let's now compare the two trees...good tree and bad tree...by the fruit they produce. One tree is called Spirit, the other Carnal (Selfish). One tree represents someone controlled by God...the other, a person who is controlled by sin. The New Testament talks a lot about the "fleshly life" which is another way of saying sinful. Not of God. A life lived according to our basest desires. Self centered. Someone who has resolutely turned from living according to the "flesh" (i.e. someone who is truly repentant) is given power by the Spirit--not to live in sin, but to live righteously. The person who is allowing God's spirit to control them will not produce the fruit of a debased life. See Galatians 5:16.

Galatians gives us a couple of lists. These lists are to help us identify whether the tree is "good" or "bad" based on the fruit hanging off their limbs.

The bad tree has this type of fruit:

"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." Gal. 5:19-21 NIV

I'm not big on paraphrases of the Bible because they are not as accurate as translations, but sometimes paraphrases can help get things across in more modern language. Check out The Message Bible paraphrase of vss. 19 & 20:

It is obvious what kind of life develops out of trying to get your own way all the time: repetitive, loveless, cheap sex; a stinking accumulation of mental and emotional garbage; frenzied and joyless grabs for happiness; trinket gods; magic-show religion; paranoid loneliness; cutthroat competition; all-consuming-yet-never-satisfied wants; a brutal temper; an impotence to love or be loved; divided homes and divided lives; small-minded and lopsided pursuits; the vicious habit of depersonalizing everyone into a rival; uncontrolled and uncontrollable addictions; ugly parodies of community. I could go on.

Paul is careful to point out that the selfish life will not go on to inherit eternal life. Christ describes the selfish and hypocritical life to be one of "lawlessness". (Matt. 7:23) Lawless? Let's think this one through. I don't remember who said this, but the quote itself stuck, "Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue." The fact that someone is a hypocrite means he acknowledges there is a law outside himself that exists. Be it a moral law or a civil one...he pretends to be following that law by what he says. But his behavior goes against the law. The hypocrite, while paying homage to lawfulness (i.e. moral virtue) by pretending to follow the law, when no one is looking he disregards the law. His life reveals he is dedicated to violating the law. Hypocrisy is a sign that a person is not to be trusted because he is lawless.

[Update] I found the author of the quote above, "Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue". It was French essayist La Rochefoucauld.

What fruit hangs off the good tree?

"...the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." Gal. 5:22

How many of these fruits do you see in the life of the malignant narcissist? Zero. Remember, we need to consider consistency here. The consistent behaviors of the life is the measurement of the character. Not the occasional misdeed or the occasional good deed.

So, using the Biblical measurement and following the command to "know them by their fruits" we can safely assess that the malignant narcissist is a bad tree. They live in complete contradiction to the truth. There is not one fruit hanging on the "bad tree" that we don't see hanging off the narcissist's life.

We don't have to go so far as to judge where they will be spending eternity. We don't have to even say whether or not they are truly Christian. We can confine ourselves to simply looking at the fruit of their lives. What does the fruit say about the tree? In the case of the malignant narcissist the fruit condemns them as being corrupt and living apart from God's Spirit. We can safely judge from their consistent behavior that they come to us "in sheep's clothing" (Matt. 7:15). They present themselves as prophets. They pretend to have the Word of the Lord in their mouths, but their lives testify against their profession. Their agenda must be questioned because of the consistent hypocrisy of their lives. Ravening wolves is the descriptor Christ used. A wolf is predatory. Their agenda is predatory. False prophets' agenda is predation of the flock. We can rightly assume that a predator does not have the best interest of you at heart.

Christians are instructed by Christ Himself to inspect the fruit of those who present themselves to us as prophets, i.e. those who claim to represent God to us. An "inspired speaker" is, by definition, someone who is inspired by God's Spirit. The Scriptures are clear that the person who consistently and persistently lives a life filled with the sins listed in Gal. 5 are not inspired nor empowered by God's Spirit. Argue with that and you are arguing with the Word, not me.

So does God speak to us through hypocrites? If God has a critical message for you, a message which addresses your soul's peril, will He risk the message being lost because He sent it through a hypocrite? Would God risk His critical message to you by committing it to the person with the big old log in their eye?

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD...Is. 1:18

Using Biblically guided reason, the answer is a resounding no. Someone whose life consistently bears bad fruit is not entrusted by God with a word to you from Him. Does the hypocrite sometimes speak the truth? Absolutely yes. But God recognizes the difficulty we have in sorting out the truth when the hypocrite with an agenda is mixing truth freely with untruth. He knows we are quick to discount truth when spoken by a known liar. God doesn't blame us for having that reaction either because it is a reasonable assumption. When the liar speaks truth it is usually only to lend credence to a lie. Pure lies don't sell. They need to attach parasitically onto truth in order to be palatable enough for us to swallow whole. See the snake in the Garden of Eden. He hid his lies by stirring in a measure of truth.

Integrity in the messenger is necessary for a message of truth to have power to convince. God will not entrust the saving of your soul to someone who is "full of hypocrisy and wickedness" (Matt. 23:28)

Take a measure of God's absolute hatred and intolerance for hypocrisy by reading Christ's condemnations in the Sermon on the Mount referenced earlier. Matt. 6:1-18. Then check out Matt. 23. Christ issues scathing rebukes to the hypocrite leaders and then asks this rhetorical question:

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" vs. 33.

Much of Christ's earthly minister was directed at saving the people from the predations of the hypocritical religious leaders. Has He changed? Is Christ going to send you a message for the saving of your soul through a hypocrite today?

Heb. 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

Christ didn't condemn and verbally flog the hypocrites of yesterday only to send one to you today to save your soul.

When the fire-breathing narcissist comes to you with a purported message from God Himself, ask yourself whose voice they are likely articulating, God's or the devil's? If the narcissist has proven by their wicked lives that they are not Spirit-controlled, then why do you assume that God has sent a message to you through a liar and a hypocrite? Christ said this to the hypocrite spiritual leaders of His day,

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. John 8:44

Whose voice did Christ say the spiritual hypocrites were speaking with? The devil's own voice. "When he lies, he speaks his native language". If you have a spiritual hypocrite in your life you can know who their father is...and whose desires they are carrying out. Christ identified them for us. The liar only speaks for the devil. Know it and live accordingly.

*******************************************************

Where does true spiritual authority derive from? The malignant spiritual narcissist is a usurper and anarchist. They usurp true spiritual authority and they subtly teach others to disregard God's laws...and by derivative, man's laws. Until we know where true spiritual authority comes from we are vulnerable to the usurper. That is fodder for another post on another day.

Voice of God or the devil?

When a narcissist discovers the vast potential for control of others through spirituality, whole congregations are in danger. Not all spiritual narcissists belong to a formal congregation; I believe that many are satisfied with controlling the "congregation" of family. Either way, a spiritual narcissist holds a very powerful handle on others once they learn the jargon, a few good Bible texts, and perfect their angel face.

Much that is labeled "spiritual" falls into the category of subjective and undefinable. At least in the minds of many people "spiritual" seems subjective and undefinable because many times rationalizations are labeled "spiritual"...and rationalizations can be legion. Because of this ambiguity, narcissists thrive. Narcissists flourish in the areas of ambiguity that exist in the minds of normal and decent people. Narcissists also thrive in social settings where the majority of people are in full possession of a conscience. People with a conscience can easily be convinced they are the ones in the wrong, that they are the ones misperceiving reality. So the narcissist who stumbles upon the rich potential of a gathering of spiritually minded people is like a kid in a candy store. Or a fox in a hen house. Or a wolf in sheep's clothing.

In my unfortunate dealings with spiritual narcissists (a category my mother also falls into since the late '90s) I have noted a common thread. The spiritual N recognizes the powerful handle they have on many by simply claiming to be plugged into the "voice of God". They either claim to have a superior understanding of God's voice as it pertains to the Scriptures, or they will go so far as to claim to be able to hear His voice either through prayer, or simply moment by moment as if they are tuned into the frequency that God transmits His will through that only the most spiritual and pure have access to on the tuner. Or all of the above. Because the Bible has many examples of individuals who heard God's voice and have articulated it for the congregation, Christians are loathe to summarily discount someone who claims such an ability. We get sucked in by our desire to believe that God's voice is so clear and discernible even if only by a select few. Who are we to say whether or not Holy Joe over there is plugged into God's Holy Frequency Channel? Rather than look like an unbeliever, most will go along with Holy Joe's claims simply because it seems impossible to disprove him.

The first and most overt case of a spiritual narcissist in my experience was my aunt who had convinced her family she could hear the voice of God, or "Abba" as she called Him. She was my mother's youngest sister, my Aunt S. I was rather shocked at her latest revision of herself when I saw her for the first time in half a dozen years. This aunt had long made great professions of spirituality and had gone through several spiritual fads, but now it was apparent she'd taken it to the next level. She went around piously stating constantly, "Abba told me this" or "Abba says no". It was an instantaneous feed where, in the very process of a conversation, my aunt claimed to have God's answer to your question or request. I watched quietly as she completely controlled the behaviors of her immediate family with this "Abba this" and "Abba that". It took me less than a day to become fully disgusted with her manipulative behavior as well as marveling at her husband's complete and total capitulation to her spiritual "superiority". She had the absolute and final last word on any subject because she had convinced her "congregation" that she had become so spiritual that she could constantly hear God's voice. By any subject I mean everything. Apparently, God is a complete control freak and really wants to tell us whether or not to eat toast for breakfast or what time to get the tires on the car rotated. Micro-management of our every single movement is apparently the spiritual narcissist's concept of God. No surprise there, since the narcissist aspires to be God Himself, and it is the narcissist's desire to completely control everything about everyone. A case of projection onto the Almighty Himself.

My mother was there for this bit of theatrics by her sister and apparently she took notes. Even though she acted a little shocked by her sister's behavior when I privately pointed out to my mother that it was just a manipulation tactic, I think the evidence now proves that my mother must have envied the power her sister had found to keep family members in complete control.

It was within the next year my mother made great profession of a conversion. Shortly thereafter she started spending large amounts of time in "Bible study" and prayer. I put Bible study in quotes because her idea of Bible study is just as perverted as anything else about her. I found out later that my mother had begun to control my cousin and her sons with messages from God in the months following her "conversion". My mother wasn't yet as overt as her sister. She didn't claim to have a continuous feed from Heaven Central. Her evolving gig consisted of her claims that in her long prayer sessions "God told me that you need to...." insert whatever it was she wanted this person to do or to stop doing. Her revelations always came after one of her looooooong prayers that she was careful to point out the length of to anyone who would listen.

It was my mother's claim to hear God's voice that ended my relationship with her. Before she engaged in an unprovoked verbal attack upon my then 20 year old daughter, my mother had been praying in my living room during the fateful Thanksgiving visit of 2002. She told my father and my daughter that morning that during her prayers in the wee hours of that day she had heard a voice telling her "GO" as she prayed about her granddaughter. She repeated this story about the voice that said "GO" many times to various people in the fall-out from this event as she tried to exonerate herself. She was simply following God's clear instruction and therefore she was not responsible for what happened. God was. We were resisting God's will by not acknowledging she was only doing what God told her to. Because I persistently refused to believe her claim to be hearing God's voice...and because I insisted on the many objective reasons why I knew it couldn't have been God's voice talking to her...she eventually recanted and said it must not have been God's voice after all. This recantation was only given to me and my daughter and not to those who weren't there to witness the event. When she felt cornered she was willing to tell me what she knew I wanted to hear...the voice in her head wasn't God. It was obvious I wasn't going to believe that the little man behind the curtain was the Great Oz...so she caved.

I also have had an experience with a spiritual narcissist who is not related to me. She too claimed to have special ability and abundant spirituality that enabled her to know God's will. She usurped power from her church positions and attempted to control every aspect of this small church's operation and outreach. This saga was particularly painful and drawn out as most people refused to see this woman for what she was. The church didn't survive the experience.

People who are honest with themselves realize that they are not particularly pure or pious. Because of this they tend to believe the professions of those who appear to be pious and pure. The decent but average churchgoer will subvert their own good sense to the spiritual narcissist because they can be easily convinced that someone else is more spiritual than themselves. No one knows better than you do that you aren't on your knees for an hour a day and studying your Bible for two hours a day. Christians are taught to believe that prayer and Bible study are the sure-fire way to get on the holiness fast-track. So when Holy Joanie comes along and drops hints about her vast hours of prayer, meditation and study, you feel like a spiritual midget and are primed to fall for the pronouncements from those you perceive to be more spiritual than you.

A bit of advice here...the truly pious make no professions of being such. It is the hypocrite and Pharisee that makes a great show of their religious acts and piety. Consider it a red flag when someone you know is careful to drop hints about their hours of prayer and Bible study, their charitable donations or volunteer work, their degrees in theology or their years of "being in the truth" when it is gratuitous to do so. See Matthew chapter six for extra help when confronted with someone who makes sure everyone see their good works. The person who has the trumpets blown just before they drop their money into the church coffers is a hypocrite. Period. When you catch someone being careful to do their good works out of sight and without recognition then you've probably found a truly good and sincerely religious person.

Sometimes the hypocrite doesn't drop the hints but finds others to do that for her. She has a few loyal friends who are careful to sing her praises or go into attack mode when their "leader" is confronted by someone who isn't buying the act. Spiritual narcissists gain a lot of power by just having a few good people who will defend her reputation to the death. The victims of the spiritual narcissist find themselves quickly ostracized, criticized and their reputations mutilated by these "true believers" in the narcissist's spiritual gifts.

Is it possible for a narcissist to be plugged into the voice of a holy and just God? Are you in spiritual danger if you discount someone's claims to be hearing God's voice even though you can see that the fruit of their lives is rotten? How can you know for sure it is okay to dismiss these transmissions without fear that you may be dismissing God Himself?

Since I'm tired of typing...I'll attempt to address those questions in the next post.

An Article: Spiritual Abuse

I have been mulling over thoughts on how to approach the subject of spiritual abuse especially as it relates to narcissists. I've had some close and personal experiences with spiritually abusive people who I am sure were very narcissistic people. There is a close link in Christian churches between the spiritually abusive and narcissism. When those two are combined we start to observe the classic red flags of cultism.

I found an article that is quite comprehensive given its relative brevity. If you feel you've been impacted by a spiritually abusive atmosphere in your church or family then I encourage you to read it in full.

Spiritual Abuse by Major Scott Nicloy

He is covering some important aspects of this problem that I will not be covering. He explains some of the reasons that well-intentioned people become abusive. I will be focusing more on the malignantly intentioned people who use the spiritual club. I think it is important to have it pointed out that not all people who over-reach in their well-intentioned efforts are doing so out of a consciously bad intent. There are plenty of zealous, empty-headed and ill-informed people who can manage the spiritual club with great vigor. In other words, not all spiritual abusers are narcissists, though I consider their behavior narcissistic. As does Mr. Nicloy. The general lack of empathy is a big part of the problem according to this man. I agree.

The Christian and the Fifth Commandment-Part One

Exodus 20:12 NIV: "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you."

It has recently been brought to my attention through an email exchange with a reader of my blog that there is a need for me to address the unique issues confronting Christians when dealing with a narcissistic parent.

It is hard enough to deal with the disapproval of societal expectations when you aren't a Christian. There is a lot of pressure in secular society for adult children to excuse any bad behavior in their parents. There is also a strong disapproval by society for anyone to use the label of "evil" to describe certain behaviors. Pop psychology promotes the idea that abusers are victims too. We are told to look sympathetically at abusive people and find "reasons" for their behaviors. This serves as nothing but a preamble to excusing the behavior. This gives the abuser a pass to continue treating you as they want with you having no real power to remove yourself from the situation.

As difficult as it is for a non-Christian to find relief from the evil behaviors of their narcissist parent, you can multiply those difficulties by about a factor of ten for the Christian. The narcissist parent who claims to be a Christian has the huge leverage of a God-given commandment to "honor your father and mother" which they universally interpret to mean, "do everything I tell you to and make me happy). They also have the leverage of a community of people (other believers) who tend to dismiss the idea that another Christian may be covertly evil and abusing their children. So other Christians can often be recruited by a narcissist parent to put the pressure on the adult child to make all efforts to stay reconciled to the abusive parent with the added fear of condemnation from God if they don't knuckle under. This behavior is spiritually abusive. It can not be over-stated how powerful a club this is on adult children of narcissists to keep them, and their own families, under the tyranny of their parent(s). Should a person decide that such a God isn't worth serving if He forces us to stay in an abusive situation with a parent or risk hell, they really can't be blamed. I wouldn't want to serve such a god either.

The good news is that the God of the Bible is just (as in justice) as well as merciful. (Psalm 89:14) His mercy is reserved for those who are humble enough to realize they need it. His justice is dispensed without partiality. (Partiality is presented as being the opposite of "just" in the Bible, therefore God doesn't condone it or engage in it. For example, see Acts 10:34 and James 3:17) Non-repentant abusers are not given a pass by God to continue just because they happened to bring children into the world.

Let's look at the greatest spiritual narcissist's club: the fifth commandment. Is the fifth commandment carte blanche for the abusive parent?

Let me state this very clearly for the record. I am not presenting you with the Biblical arguments I used to justify my decision to cut off my parents. These are the the principles that I used to inform my decision to do so. If my examination of the Bible made it clear that I am supposed to keep evil people in my life if they call themselves "mom" or "dad", then I would have had to comply. It didn't work out that way I'm happy to report.

First, I can categorically state that there is no Biblical example of God honoring evil. We have no Biblical example or statement of God requiring His people to honor evil. We have scores of Biblical exhortations for God's people to rebuke and shun evil (I will deal with this more in an upcoming post). If you are willing to acknowledge as truth these two realities then you will have to conclude that whatever God was telling us to do in the fifth commandment, He was NOT requiring us to honor evil. This is not going to be an exhaustive treatment of the fifth commandment. I am only going to give you some highlights to help you examine what you believe.

Christ divided the commandments into two parts; love for God and love for man. (Matt. 22:36-40) The second part of the ten commandments (love for man) begins at the fifth commandment which tells us to honor our parents. The very foundational authority of society is parental authority. If children are not taught to obey parental authority it leads directly to societal degradation through the disregard of ANY authority that is the inevitable result of a disregard of parental authority. This foundational authority is reinforced by God's Own authority by placing this command in the Big Ten. The intent and purpose of this commandment is to maintain structure and order in society and respect for higher authority at the place where it originates...the family. Ideally, parents are to be loving, protecting and nurturing even as they establish their authority to make the rules in the family. When these principles prevail in a majority of families, society is law-abiding and healthy. We see in our present-day examples of how the breakdown of parental authority has far-reaching effects on society at large. God is protecting all of us with this commandment from the devastating effects of the breakdown of respect for all authority which begins in the family home.

When we grow up and leave the parental home the fifth commandment doesn't apply in the same sense, though it still has force for the adult child. In Biblical times, up until quite recently, children would leave the parental home when they themselves were entering marriage. The Bible is clear that a new dynamic occurs when this happens. Genesis 2:24, where God performed the first marriage we are told this: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Biblically, when we marry, we are no longer under subjection to parental authority. We are no longer to live as if our parents come first. The Biblical language on this is profound. In God's eyes, married people "are one flesh". No where is the parent/child relationship described this way. In God's estimation, marriage binds two people together more profoundly than even blood relation. What comes first, after we marry, is OUR SPOUSE. We do not live our lives according to parental "laws" except the laws of kindness and respect and making sure our parents are not indigent. This is a crucial point because narcissistic parents are audacious enough to make the claim that they come before your spouse and your own children. This claim can not be supported Scripturally. If you are conceding to this demand you are not honoring your vows before God and your spouse and you are failing your own children. The Biblical instruction for married people is that they are to be in subjection to each other. 1 Cor. 7:3-4. Other, more controversial, verses put the husband in authority over the wife, but this is with the careful caveat that the husband is to love his wife as tenderly as he loves his own body and as Christ loves the church. Since Christ died for the church, this puts the bar very high on the level of sacrifice and other-centered love a husband is to have for his wife. No oppression is being sanctioned in these instructions. But I digress. The point is, Biblically, a husband and wife are a new entity before God and are subject to each other and not their parents. A conscientious married Christian is duty-bound before God to no longer subject themselves to the rules and regulations an unscrupulous parent may demand. The narcissist parent who demands the regard of first place in the lives of their grown children hasn't a Biblical leg to stand on.

In my next post on this subject I will continue to present the principles involved with the fifth commandment.

Targets of opportunity

Time: Thanksgiving 2002
Place: My home
Victim: My daughter

Description of event:

The visit had been going on for several days which is the limit for my Nmother to be able to behave herself. Back in September she had invited herself and my father for Thanksgiving in my home which I agreed to. I thought I had reason to believe that my Nmother was "changed". Our relationship had been going well since I had visited her the previous summer. This was before I knew anything about NPD; obviously, I was still naive. I did have unvoiced reservations about the visit because having my mother in my home for a holiday has never gone well.

I look back and see that my big "mistake" of that visit was of treating my mother like a normal human being. I was gracious and generous toward her, but I didn't fawn over or excessively coddle her. (Narcissists are gods in their own minds; you insult them when you treat them like they are normal humans.) There were other factors that played into this, but I'm trying to stay brief. I did notice times when my mother seemed to be unhappy despite the fact that I was trying to reasonably accommodate her at every juncture. I am convinced now that her biggest problem was my attitude. Something big had changed in me and she wasn't failing to notice. I had been trained since birth to react in certain ways to her. I was her puppet on a string. I was extremely intuitive and could sense a shift in her mood from a mile away. That hadn't changed. What had changed was the fact that I wasn't being manipulated by her expectations and signals. I didn't act like I was intuiting her every signal. This was making her feel very insecure and angry. But she, like all narcissists, is naturally wary, afraid even, of someone who is not weak. She was afraid to confront me or make me miserable for displeasing her because she had no real case, and she could see that I was not anymore her scared, controlled daughter. I had an aura of strength and she was despising me for it. Events with my mother in 1998 had led me to this change. Maybe I'll share that story someday.

So what was she to do? She had to lash out and transfer her ugly feelings onto someone else to cleanse herself. I was not acting like prey so she couldn't use me for this purpose. She turned her evil eye onto my daughter.

My daughter had been trained when she was young to be afraid of her grandmother. My mother liked it that way. My daughter was now 20 years old and had had limited contact with her grandmother for more than 10 years at this juncture. She was no longer fearful of her grandmother although she still maintained a low profile around her as she is a naturally reticent person. My mother had always treated her like she was an irritant and my daughter had learned that laying low was the best way to avoid being a target. Well, it didn't work this time. In fact, this very behavior was now to be condemned.

Early in the morning I came upstairs to find my mother sitting in the near dark in the living room with her Bible and crying. (She had piously studied her Bible and prayed in the living room each morning of her visit to that point. Why she couldn't do that in the bedroom was only because she had to make a show of her great piety.) I asked her what was wrong although I didn't rush towards her to console. I was wary and concerned that I was about to get laid into; although for what I had no clue. She bravely wiped away her tears and answered, "Oh, nothing, I often cry when I talk to my Jesus." *weak smile* I kind of got the willies. My Jesus? Yuck. That was my immediate reaction. Now, in retrospect I interpret that statement this way....my Jesus is exactly what it is. She has created her own Jesus. He is hers alone because he is a construct of her vain imagination. She has created a god in her own image. I am convinced her "Jesus" is the devil himself.

I didn't push the issue. I let her explanation stand and didn't try to cajole her into telling me more. I just felt relieved that she wasn't about to rip me a new one, grabbed some coffee, talked briefly with her on safe topics and went back to my bedroom to start getting ready for church. What happened next I didn't find out until we got home after church.

While my husband and I were downstairs getting ready, the narcissist sensed her opportunity and went in for the "kill". Like any predatory animal, she wasn't willing to strike when she didn't feel safe to do so. A predator doesn't want too much trouble. They pursue only the weak and defenseless. This is how my mother perceived my daughter to be.

Apparently my mother lied to me when she told me nothing was wrong earlier that morning. She was crying to her "Jesus" because she was truly unhappy. Now, two hours later, it was time to do something about it. She told my father that she was going to talk to my daughter about something with the obvious implication that this was to be chastisement. My father told her not to do it. My mother claimed that "God" was telling her to "GO!". She must heed the voices in her head because she long ago had convinced herself that God himself speaks to her. My father's voice can't trump the voices in her head.

Shortly before we would be leaving for church, while my husband and I are getting dressed downstairs, Nmom calls my daughter into her bedroom and tells her to sit down. She then commences with her condemnations. She started out telling my daughter that God Himself told her to "GO!", so she was being impelled by the big guy himself to talk to her. Then she proceeds with saying, "I am very uncomfortable around you. So uncomfortable that if I could I would leave here right this moment. You make me feel very unwelcome." What the ??. It is impossible to convey in writing the tone and demeanor of how these words were said. I can see it like I was there because I've been in my daughter's situation untold numbers of times. Let's just say that my mother is a very intimidating person. She is expert at conjuring fear in the females in her family. Anyway, my daughter is blind-sided. She had actually been looking forward to the visit and had done her quietly sweet things to show her affection. Before the visit, she told me she wanted my mom and dad to have her bedroom during their stay. She set about baking bread and cookies for their visit. She cheerfully did all the kitchen clean-up during the visit. Now she is being completely condemned for .... what exactly? The accusations stayed vague. Finally, my mother told my daughter that she was showing disrespect by not looking her grandmother in the eye when she spoke to her. She could cite no specific instances when this supposedly happened. Since I was there for the whole visit I can attest to the total bullshit this accusation is. Reality is this: for the first time her granddaughter didn't act uncomfortable around her. She was natural and relaxed. This was her great sin. My mother interprets fear as proof of her power. What I can clearly divine from my mother's accusation is that she was angry at all of us for not showing her deference. She reveals this to be so by something she said next in that bedroom confrontation, "I am the inner sanctum of this family and I deserve respect." My mother had no idea how she would totally destroy her relationship with me with those words.

My mother did not stop her accusatory onslaught until she had reduced my daughter to tears. This is how it always worked with my Nmom. She wouldn't stop until she had gotten either me or my sister to finally "break". When we were dissolved into tears, she felt better. She could back off. She would show an obvious sense of relief. It was sadistic. She continued this cruel sadism on me into my late 20's.

My daughter didn't have opportunity to tell me of the attack until we had returned home after church. She recounted specifically the statement about being the "Inner Sanctum" because it puzzled her somewhat. How did that apply in this situation, she wondered. I was aghast and infuriated at the attack, and these words in specific, although I didn't display it to my mother. I put on a smile and put a meal on the table. I didn't realize that my father knew about the confrontation. I wanted to save the visit by avoiding a confrontation with my mother. I didn't want to ruin the whole visit for my father. I didn't realize back then that he deserved to have his visit ruined.

What my mother conveyed in her claim to be the inner sanctum of "this family" was profoundly revealing to me even though I didn't yet understand NPD. She revealed by her choice of verbiage that she thought she could set herself up as the center of my family. Not just any center either....she uses the language of deity to show how she expects to be worshiped. She also makes it clear that she doesn't have to earn respect, she deserves it as native right. It is her due. This is the spirit of the despot. The tyrannical dictator demands respect. We've all heard stories of despotic rulers who have executed someone for having the "wrong" look on their face, or who didn't prove their loyalty and worship with the right action at the right time. My mother is no different except she can't carry out the death penalty. I resolved from that moment that my daughter would never have to set eyes on her grandmother again.

This is just one story to illustrate the predatory nature of the narcissist. They seek the weakest target and have an innate sense of when the moment presents itself. It is this precise measurement of a target of opportunity which proves to me that the narcissist can and does control their behavior. This is yet another proof to me of the fact that narcissists are evil. They are careful to cover their deeds under a cloak of darkness. We should rightfully consider NPD and psychopathy as Evil Personality Disorder. These people know what they are doing as revealed by their consistently choosing targets of opportunity. They lay in wait. They only pounce when it is safe for them to do so. They are predatory. This fact must always be borne in mind for our own safety. I will repeat this over and over because it must sink in if you are going to be able to choose a safe course of action with the narcissist in your life. No matter the circumstance, no matter the apparent behavior of the narcissist, be always assured that they are laying in wait. Don't make the mistake of thinking you will be smart enough to beat them at their game. They have very different motivations than normal people do. They are so practiced at their game that it is instinctive to them. This enables them to nearly always get something over on you. You may be smart, but they are cunning. Never underestimate the cunning of evil people. You can't beat them at their own game.

Recommended website and book

The website I would like to recommend is titled: Cosmicwalk - Help for victims of abusive parents and partners/Child abuse/Wife Abuse.

If you are a Christian, or even if you are no longer practicing as a Christian but have a Christian background, this site can be particularly helpful to you. Christians, and those with Christian backgrounds, have extra challenges in overcoming the effects of abuse because of the way many people have distorted God's character, His law, His love. Christians have obstacles in their way when it comes to breaking free from abusers and being able to heal their minds. The author of this website has clearly wrestled with the issues unique to Christians and come out of the side where the light and healing are.

Even if you are not dealing with the special challenges of Christians there is much helpful information and perspective here for you too.

On a related subject, the book I would like to recommend is for those of you who are dealing with spiritual abuse either in your church or home. The book is titled, "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse; Recognizing and escaping spiritual manipulation and false spiritual authority within the church" by Jeff VanVonderen and David Johnson. I read this book about two years before I came to understand Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Even without understanding NPD this book enabled me to deal with spiritual abusers and their powerful emotional clubs. Believe me, there is a linkage between spiritual abusers and NPD. I was not only dealing with spiritual abuse in the church, I had come to recognize the spiritual abuse my Nmother was a virtuoso in. The most helpful aspect of this book is in teaching you how to recognize where true spiritual authority comes from. Believe me, it isn't coming from the abuser! A very practical, clear, helpful book. This book will not add to the abuse or to your already heavy emotional burdens. I highly recommend it to anyone who is dealing with, or who has ever dealt with, spiritual abuse. Once you have the tools to recognize and deal with it, you'll never be victimized this way again.